why did RMS decide not to honor his commitment to "do no harm?
Posted Oct 2, 2006 4:33 UTC (Mon) by shieldsd
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
This BusyBox business is just one more sign of the abyss we are facing. We all know Linus was heavily tied to GPL2. And RMS promised to "do no harm" per section 1.3 of the process document; so the proper approach would have been for RMS and Linus to work together in a series of license "patches" to avoid the possibility of forking; that is, refine the license in the same way as the code is developed. This would have allowed full community participation at every step.
Yet RMS decided to pull ahead on his own and added the DRM provisions. This made forking almost inevitable, which means we are going to see more projects forking. Each such fork will divert developer resources needlessly, thus slowing the rate at which the kernel and associated software packages can grow.
It's a shame, and it could have been avoided.
I've some more thoughts on this at my blog: http://daveshields.wordpress.com
to post comments)